Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Can someone also please inform the "sniveling wimp" that he is not fooling anyone? He can quote his latest bing searches all he likes but the truth is, he is as ignorant as the sun is bright. He has already proven that by saying some of the most ridiculous retarded shit you will ever hear while simultaneously acting like a pompous know-it-all prick. Now "the sniveling wimp" wants to save face by hacking away at wikipedia articles and regurgitating them on here. He wouldn't know "economics" if Adam Smith, John Keynes and Milton Friedman rose from the dead and triple-penetrated his ass before giving him a dusty bukkake for the ages.
The "sniveling wimp" is not much brighter than a rabid junkyard dog, and must be treated as such.
Sssstttt Dog Ssssttt!
A dusty bukkake
Now that's some funny shit. I don't care who you are.
He wouldn't know "economics" if Adam Smith, John Keynes and Milton Friedman rose from the dead and triple-penetrated his ass before giving him a dusty bukkake for the ages.
Weak. Lame. Juvenile. Sophomoric. Useless. Another attempt to deflect from shamfucker's illiteracy and utter inability to talk substance when it comes to economics. He can drop the names of a few iconic economists. But when he is invited politely and repeatedly to elaborate on their theories in a way that is relevant to the topic under discussion, he reverts to puerile insults. Very revealing.
And yet, you still thought that because he was dead, something that he proposed couldn't be used. As if his ideas died with him. You know ideas don't die with people, right?
Are you the slave of some defunct economist, undercunt?
....instead of pushing for a large minimum wage increase, an honest, non-demagogic progressive (sorry, that doesn't include the clueless Bernie Sanders) would support a large expansion of the EITC, which is obviously redistributionist, but wouldn't impose a job-destroying hardship on low-margin operations like many types of restaurants and retail stores. Thus, it encourages work and does not disincentivize job creation.
(The net effect of this is not significantly different from that of the "negative income tax" advocated by Milton Friedman 50 years ago. His essential point was that its structure would be significantly less clusterfuckish than running large amounts of money through a mishmash of bureaucratic social welfare agencies, and the EITC is structured in such a way that it incentivizes work for people who lack education and skills.)
Good comments. Two points:
First, all progressives are demagogues. If forced to choose between expanding the EITC or raising the MW, they would opt for the MW increase. Why? Because they can demagogue against the EITC as a government subsidy for employers of low-wage workers. After all, it enables McDonalds and Walmart to pay their employees less than they would otherwise be paying in the absence of a generous EITC. A demagogic progressive would say, “Why should we pick up the slack for all those greedy business owners who refuse to pay a living wage?” Of course, if not forced to choose between them, most progressives would vote in favor of both.
Second, while the EITC admittedly has the advantage of avoiding a costly bureaucracy, it's also riddled with fraud and error. In recent years, the IRS has estimated roughly 25% of EITC payments are “improper” - costing taxpayers between $12 billion and $15 billion a year. Milton Friedman did not anticipate how utterly inept the IRS would be in preventing fraudsters from ripping off a negative income tax system.
Can some one please tell the "sniveling wimp" that he should stop pretending he knows Milton Friedman? He has already proven otherwise by shouting his mouth off and then getting his ass handed to him that he has absolutely, utterly NO CLUE who "that guy" is. No amount of copy/paste will or should convince anyone otherwise. This "sniveling wimp" is, by his own standard, the very definition of "buzzword bozo". His petty ego is hurt right now because he just can't handle the fact that his utter stupidity and ignorance was exposed and therefore he will continue hacking away with copy/paste and "wikipedia" articles to maybe convince his idiot friends otherwise. He is a rabid dog and must either be put down or trained to know his place.
This "sniveling wimp" is, by his own standard, the very definition of "buzzword bozo".
For chrissake, shammytard, can't you be original enough to come up with your own expressions instead of stealing mine? Do you lack all imagination or are you just trying to flatter me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
You are what is known as a BUZZWORD BOZO, shamfucker. You swoop in and drop a few of your pigeonshit buzzword droplets on everyone's head to make it sound like you might know what you are talking about, then scoot for the exit when anyone calls you on it.
Can someone also tell the "sniveling wimp" that I will not address him on this topic again until he owns up to his bullshit on the other thread and finally posts the long overdue apology that he owes every single person on this board.
Until then I will treat him like the low-life dog he is and not give him any attention. sssstt!
Really? You're going to pretend not to notice Lustylad - or pretend to relay your responses to him through 3rd parties?
Yeah, that will work on this board.
Before we just thought you were stupid. Now, we know it for certain.
Really? You're going to pretend not to notice Lustylad - or pretend to relay your responses to him through 3rd parties?
Yeah, that will work on this board.
Before we just thought you were stupid. Now, we know it for certain.
What's that? I can't hear over the sound of you choking on his dick.
That LustyLad you speak of(AKA sniveling wimp AKA chickenshit worm AKA cowardly sissy) has already disqualified himself from any present and future discussion on this topic by acting like an insufferable know-it-all and exposing himself for the ignorant cretin that he really is.
Any person who claims to know "so much" about economics should at least have a remote idea of Milton Friedman and his policies, given that they have been so important in shaping the recent events in our economy. Apparently, Lusty"sniveling wimp"Lad has no idea who "that man" is. What's more, the chickenshit blowhard had the gall to call me out on it which ended with the worm getting his ass handed to him (again).
As far as I'm concerned that takes away any credence that I would give to his opinion on this topic (or any other topic really). He was obviously talking out his ass("buzzword bozo") and isn't man enough to admit it. Unless he apologizes for his (innumerable) mistakes and mans up for the first time in his life, "sniveling wimp" is the only way I will be addressing him on this thread.
"I will not look at ze dog, I will not acknowledge ze dog, I'm letting ze dog know I am not interested in him. SSSTTT!!"
What's that? I can't hear over the sound of you choking on his dick.
That LustyLad you speak of(AKA sniveling wimp AKA chickenshit worm AKA cowardly sissy) has already disqualified himself from any present and future discussion on this topic by acting like an insufferable know-it-all and exposing himself for the ignorant cretin that he really is.
Any person who claims to know "so much" about economics should at least have a remote idea of Milton Friedman and his policies, given that they have been so important in shaping the recent events in our economy. Apparently, Lusty"sniveling wimp"Lad has no idea who "that man" is. What's more, the chickenshit blowhard had the gall to call me out on it which ended with the worm getting his ass handed to him (again).
As far as I'm concerned that takes away any credence that I would give to his opinion on this topic (or any other topic really). He was obviously talking out his ass("buzzword bozo") and isn't man enough to admit it. Unless he apologizes for his (innumerable) mistakes and mans up for the first time in his life, "sniveling wimp" is the only way I will be addressing him on this thread.
"I will not look at ze dog, I will not acknowledge ze dog, I'm letting ze dog know I am not interested in him. SSSTTT!!"
The progressive mind has spoken! No wonder I detest the left so much.
But keep up your stupid gimmick of responding to all of LustyLad's posts while pretending to not notice them. And demanding apologies. That'll work.
Weak. Lame. Juvenile. Sophomoric. Useless. Another attempt to deflect from shamfucker's illiteracy and utter inability to talk substance when it comes to economics. He can drop the names of a few iconic economists. But when he is invited politely and repeatedly to elaborate on their theories in a way that is relevant to the topic under discussion, he reverts to puerile insults. Very revealing.
Like thinking that Friedman's ideas couldn't be implemented AFTER his death? Resorting to insults reveals nothing. You've leveled some pretty puerile insults yourself, so calling issue with them now is nothing but your 'spreading happiness' pussy assness rearing its ugly head again. You want to be all hardcore when you're on the offensive but now that you've had your ass handed to you, you decide it's time to quit the insults. Go fuck yourself you cunty cocktard. How are you liking that dusty bukkake jizz beard?
Like thinking that Friedman's ideas couldn't be implemented AFTER his death? Resorting to insults reveals nothing. You've leveled some pretty puerile insults yourself, so calling issue with them now is nothing but your 'spreading happiness' pussy assness rearing its ugly head again. You want to be all hardcore when you're on the offensive but now that you've had your ass handed to you, you decide it's time to quit the insults. Go fuck yourself you cunty cocktard. How are you liking that dusty bukkake jizz beard?
Had to slither out from under your rock and admit you are the “cunty cocktard” who started this thread 3 weeks ago, didn't you undercunt? Since you're obviously returning to reclaim your thread, you can start with this - explain why the Dept. of Labor on its website cited 64 studies finding “no discernable (sic) effect on employment” and neglected to mention that an even greater number of studies concluded exactly the opposite. If you talk to the DOL, be sure to give them the correct spelling for DISCERNIBLE.
Oh, and by the way, you still haven't explained why you suddenly ran off and disabled your account, only to sneak back in here with a new handle. Were you tired of all the brickbats? Was the contempt oozing through your computer screen too intense for you to bear? Did you regret outing yourself as gay on a straight hooker board by telling everyone how much you like to suck dicks? What exactly was the problem? Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh, and another thing - if you had any background in economics you would know there is a spirited debate among economists over whether or not (and if so, the extent to which) Milton Friedman would have endorsed the policy of “quantitative easing” rolled out by the Fed after his death. If QE was Friedman's idea as you claim, explain why this is even a subject for debate. You are a libtard shit-stirrer. You think Friedman is a conservative god and you notice some conservatives are critical of QE - so you think you can smear shit by yelling “Friedman invented QE!” The reality is far too nuanced for a simple-minded shit-smearer like you. Crude insults and superficial talking points are all you know. So just admit it and stop pretending you can spar intellectually with anyone else on this board.
Had to slither out from under your rock and admit you are the “cunty cocktard” who started this thread 3 weeks ago, didn't you undercunt? Since you're obviously returning to reclaim your thread, you can start with this - explain why the Dept. of Labor on its website cited 64 studies finding “no discernable (sic) effect on employment” and neglected to mention that an even greater number of studies concluded exactly the opposite. If you talk to the DOL, be sure to give them the correct spelling for DISCERNIBLE.
Oh, and by the way, you still haven't explained why you suddenly ran off and disabled your account, only to sneak back in here with a new handle. Were you tired of all the brickbats? Was the contempt oozing through your computer screen too intense for you to bear? Did you regret outing yourself as gay on a straight hooker board by telling everyone how much you like to suck dicks? What exactly was the problem? Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh, and another thing - if you had any background in economics you would know there is a spirited debate among economists over whether or not (and if so, the extent to which) Milton Friedman would have endorsed the policy of “quantitative easing” rolled out by the Fed after his death. If QE was Friedman's idea as you claim, explain why this is even a subject for debate. You are a libtard shit-stirrer. You think Friedman is a conservative god and you notice some conservatives are critical of QE - so you think you can smear shit by yelling “Friedman invented QE!” The reality is far too nuanced for a simple-minded shit-smearer like you. Crude insults and superficial talking points are all you know. So just admit it and stop pretending you can spar intellectually with anyone else on this board.
.
You're not that lucky. As I've said, and will continue to do so, I don't know this UC. On the other hand, I'll spar with you. Anytime. The question wasn't whether Friedman would have endorsed QE. Per usual, you are once again changing the rules midstream. It's a debate because you acted as if QE could somehow not be implemented because Friedman had died 3 years earlier.
Seems that many think he not only invented QE as we know it, but that he would have been in agreement with its use. How can I make such a claim, you ask? I have it from the horses' mouth. Milton Friedman himself espousing this very idea in regards to Japan and it's economic situation. Once again, you've been measured and found wanting. Give it up, cheesedick.
A simple question; why couldn't you have found this?
Crude insults are all I know? Like when I joined this board for spirited debate and you relentlessly referred to me as a cunt, undercunt and any manner of other niceties? Like that? You sir, and I use that word loosely, are the fucking worst. You even admit in your bio that you are a jackoff of all trades and master of none. Never has this been more true than in this current dustup. You know just enough about economics to be made to look like a fucking fool by someone who knows JUST a bit more. And that's all it takes, really. How I would love to see you debate economics in front of a real group of economists, only to have yourself ripped limb from limb, whilst shitting and pissing yourself to beat the band, and all the while I can't stop laughing. You huff and puff and try to do your best at making yourself seem relevant. As I said before, you've been found wanting. Go on now. Get away from me. You disgust me with your ignorance and your insults.
